Family Integrity

Category: News Media/Press Releases

  • Greens Decide Parents Should Now Be Listened To

    MEDIA RELEASE

    23 July 2008

    Greens Decide Parents Should Now Be Listened To

    Family First NZ says it is highly ironic, and hypocritical, for the Greens to be demanding that the government listen to the concerns of parents worried about the health risks of locating huge telecommunications tower masts next to pre-schools and schools.

    Green Party Press Release “Dear Helen, please listen to the parents” – 23 July 2008

    “For the past two years, the Green party has completely ignored the voice of over 80% of NZ’ers who opposed Green MP Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, and have shown no concern that over 50% of our parents have admitted breaking the law and are risking investigation by police and CYF,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “The Greens are completely correct to demand that the concerns of parents are given weight regarding the location of phone towers and associated health risks, but they can’t have it both ways.”

    “They can’t ignore the views of parents on how they want to raise their kids legally and reasonably, yet demand that parents be heard on other issues.”

    “The Greens need to respect the important role of parents on all issues – not just those that they agree with them on,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Queensland – Laws a legal minefield: lawyer

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/antismacking-laws-a-legal-minefield-lawyer/2008/06/30/1214677902879.html

    Laws a legal minefield: lawyer

    Christine Kellett | June 30, 2008 – 11:59AM

    Anti-smacking laws to punish Queensland parents who used “excessive force” to discipline their children could be too hard to prosecute, a lawyer has warned.

    Moves by the Labor Party to toughen its stance on smacking were made at its state conference earlier this month, with suggestions the practice would eventually be outlawed.

    But Brisbane lawyer Michael Bosscher, of criminal defence firm Ryan and Bosscher, said changes to the Criminal Code to make smacking illegal would be a legal minefield and would cause more problems than they solved.

    He cited the example of New Zealand, where anti-smacking legislation had sparked a public backlash and had prompted calls for a referendum.

    “It is amazing to think Queensland is considering going down this path when New Zealand is trying to reverse its decision,” Mr Bosscher said.

    “Our laws already provide the option to prosecute parents who abuse their children.

    The move comes after shocking cases of children being abandoned outside casinos and hotels in South East Queensland while their parents socialised hit the headlines earlier this year.

    Mr Bosscher said said practical difficulties would arise when police, lawyers and the courts tried to prosecute parents who smacked.

    “The real danger with new laws is how you interpret and enforce them and there is a risk of zealous authorities prosecuting parents for minor smacks that would traditionally be seen as just part of parenting.

    “There’s this nanny state mentality here where the state government is imposing draconian laws upon families, in theory to protect children. However if you start prosecuting parents for smacking children, the potential to destroy families and therefore hurt children, is enormous.

    “Anti-smacking laws would be a controversial issue to prosecute in the courts because one police officers definition of excessively hard smacking could be radically different from another officers view.

    Mr Bosscher said Queensland laws currently allowed parents to use “reasonable force” to discipline their children.

    “A change to the Criminal Code is not needed. The law already has provision to prosecute parents- or any person- who inflicts serious, grievous or bodily harm on a child,” he said.

    “What they are really talking about is changing the law to brand parents as criminals. This is wrong and is not needed in Queensland.”

  • Anti-Smacking Law Confirmed as Wasting Valuable CYF Time

    MEDIA RELEASE

    8 July 2008

    Anti-Smacking Law Confirmed as Wasting Valuable CYF Time

    Family First NZ says that the evidence is in that CYF’s limited resources are being wasted, with a ‘blow-out’ in CYF notifications but the levels of actual abuse not increasing, or at worst not being caught.

    “This is perfect proof that the ideologically flawed anti-smacking law has resulted in unwarranted reports of good parents which is a waste of the limited resources of CYF,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    Statistics released by CYF to the Nelson Mail reported today showed that the total number of notifications received by CYF had increased steadily over the last four financial years. However, the agency’s figures showed a significant drop in actual cases found to involve abuse or neglect.

    And figures from CYF’s national 2007/08 Third Quarter report show a 32% increase in notifications over the previous 12 months but numbers requiring further action remaining the same.

    “If the figures could be attributed to a rising intolerance to child abuse and domestic violence, we would be seeing an increasing rate of cases requiring further action – but we are not. That is simply because of a misguided law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “CYF resources are being wasted because of a law that labels good parents as potential child abusers, and distracts CYF and Police from dealing with the real causes of child abuse and actual child abuse.”

    “The police report released last month also confirmed that there had been a 300% increase in families being investigated yet less than 5% were serious enough to warrant prosecution. And the number of actual child assaults are now at almost the same rate as before the law change.”

    Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 85% of NZ’ers according to recent research). Then CYF and Police will have the time and resources to focus on the ‘rotten parents’ who are abusing and killing their children.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Larry Baldock: “You will not drown out the voice of the people”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstandard/4610385a6502.html

    Kiwi Party singles out drugs, booze

    By GRANT MILLER – Manawatu Standard | Monday, 07 July 2008

    Random drug-testing in schools, violent criminals losing any right to parole and increasing the penalty for class A drug manufacture and distribution to the same as murder are the planks of a hardline law and order policy from the Kiwi Party.

    “Those profiting from the manufacture and sale of class A drugs are murderers in my opinion,” party leader Larry Baldock said at a regional conference in Palmerston North.

    The maximum penalty for importing, manufacturing or supplying class A drugs is already life imprisonment, however.

    Conspiring to supply class A drugs carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

    Mr Baldock said drug and alcohol abuse was at the root of much of the nation’s crime.

    “Our young people need a strong message to encourage them to make the right choices with regards to binge drinking and drug usage,” he said.

    “Random testing would help identify those in need of help and make it clear that we do not intend to stand idly by while they waste their youth and potential. . .”

    A World Health Organisation report found that 42 percent of New Zealanders had used cannabis.

    Mr Baldock, who had himself used cannabis, said it nearly ruined him.

    Lowering the drinking age from 20 to 18 was a mistake, he said.

    People alleged to have committed violent offences should not be eligible for bail and violent criminals would not get parole or home detention.

    Hail pelted the region in the hours before the conference and the weather was freezing throughout the day.

    “For hardy folk like yourselves, it’s a summer’s day really, isn’t it?” party president and emcee Frank Naea joked at the Palmerston North Convention Centre.

    Mr Baldock, who led efforts to bring about a referendum on smacking, said the Kiwi Party was not a single-issue party, though repealing anti-smacking legislation had been its top priority.

    “Parents should be able to raise their children without the fear of the police turning up at the door,” he said.

    “Helen Clark, Sue Bradford, Peter Dunne, John Key – you will not drown out the voice of the people.”

    The Christian-based party played clips from the Amazing Grace movie, which depicted anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce presenting 390,000 signatures – roughly the same number collected against anti-smacking legislation.

    Mr Baldock was frosty about the prime minister’s record of “social engineering”.

    He said Miss Clark’s agenda of “humanism, socialism and secularism” undermined traditional Kiwi values exemplified by Sir Edmund Hillary.

    The Kiwi Party hoped anger over anti-smacking legislation would translate into votes for the party at this year’s election.

    Mr Baldock said he believed the party could cross the 5 percent threshold needed to earn representation in Parliament – or that he could win the Tauranga electorate.

    If successful, the party would not support Labour.

    It would also “make sure National does not return to the harsh social policies of the 1990s”.

    People wanted to get rid of Labour but they were “not really that stoked about National”.

  • People Should Have A Say On Anti-Smacking Law

    Immediate Release: Tuesday, June 24 2008

    People Should Have A Say On Anti-Smacking Law

    Prime Minister Helen Clark is completely wrong to prevent New Zealanders from having a vote on Labour’s controversial anti-smacking legislation, ACT Leader Rodney Hide said today.

    “The anti-smacking law has clearly failed to stop child abuse – just as ACT said it would,” Mr Hide said.

    “All this legislation does is make criminals of good parents and tie police up with fruitless complaints. Meanwhile, the real child abuse continues on un-targeted and un-addressed.

    “Just because Labour and National voted to criminalise good parents who use a smack to discipline their children doesn’t mean that Kiwis shouldn’t have a say.

    “Labour’s anti-smacking legislation strikes at the very heart of how Kiwi parents raise their children, with both National and Labour saying they know best.

    “ACT doesn’t accept that they do – ACT backs parents, and we back Kiwis having a say about what they think the law should be,” Mr Hide said.

    ENDS

  • Nats won’t change child-discipline law, says Key

    Family First:

    We have been asked on a number of occasions where does National stand on the anti-smacking law, and will they change it if elected as the government.

    Here’s the answer…
     Nats won’t change child-discipline law, says Key
    The Press 26 June 2008
    National Party leader John Key has ruled out overturning the controversial child-discipline law if he becomes Prime Minister, despite championing a referendum on the issue. In Parliament yesterday, he accused Prime Minister Helen Clark of “ignoring the will of the New Zealand people” and urged a referendum be held on the so-called “anti-smacking” legislation at election time. His call came after Clark announced the Government had accepted official advice that it was too late to hold a referendum this year.

    Asked by The Press afterwards if a National government would consider revoking the law as a result of a referendum, Key said: “No. The position as it has essentially always been since we signed a compromise (with Labour) is that if we see good parents being criminalised for lightly smacking their children then we will actively seek to change the law,” he said. “But at this point, as the police report pointed out earlier this week, we haven’t seen that at all. “The test we have is a pretty simple one. If the law doesn’t work then we’ll change it.”
    READ FULL ARTICLE     http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4596934a24035.html

    Family First Comment :
    We are currently researching a number of cases where good parents have been criminalised or had children removed by CYF for lightly smacking or correcting their children.

    If you have been investigated or prosecuted by the police or CYF for ‘light smacking’, or know of someone who has, please email us in the strictest confidence bob@familyfirst.org.nz

    Kind regards

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • FI414-FAMILY FIRST – Please join our call

    26 June 2008 – Family Integrity #414 — FAMILY FIRST – Please join our call

    Dear Friends,
    Let me encourage you to please join this call to get some MPs to force the referendum to go though at the same time as the election in November.
    There are only 7 MPs to email. A sample letter of what to say and the email addresses are all reproduced below.
    Thanks a million.
    Regards,
    Craig Smith
    National Director
    Family Integrity
    Ph: (06) 357-4399
    Fax: (06) 357-4389
    Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
    http://    www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

    Our Home….Our Castle
    25 Jun 2008

    Would you consider joining our call…

    Call for Majority of Parliament

    To Demand Election Day Referendum

    Family First Media Release 25 June 2008
    Family First NZ has written to the leaders of National, Act, NZ First, United Future and the two independent MP’s asking that they form a majority and require the anti-smacking Referendum to be held on Election Day.

    Under section 22AA (5) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, a Referendum can be scheduled for polling day if the “House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.”

    “That is an ordinary 50% majority vote,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “ We are therefore calling on National, Act, NZ First, United Future and the two independent MP’s to acknowledge the voice of over 350,000 people and require that the Referendum be held at the most obvious and cost-efficient time of the upcoming election.”

    “ Any party that votes against this proposal should have the $10 million that it will cost to do a postal ballot charged against their election expenses ,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “If Sir Robert Muldoon could call a 1984 snap election just four weeks before polling day, and the-then National Government in 1999 take only a week to determine Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day, it proves that the Prime Minister’s claim that there is not enough time is a cynical and desparate attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet and undermine democracy.”

    If the Prime Minister goes ahead and forces the Governor-General to declare that it be held by postal voting, then the majority of Parliament can still require the voting period to close on the day of the general election – s22AB(6)(b)

    “This is second best as it is a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer money,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    JOIN OUR CALL

    Email
    john.key@parliament.govt.nz
    peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz
    rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz
    winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz
    gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
    taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz
    pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz

    View the Act: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0101/latest/DLM318489.html

    LETTER

    We are asking that you form a majority in the House and require the anti-smacking Referendum to be held on Election Day.

    Under section 22AA (5) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, a Referendum can be scheduled for polling day if the “House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.”

    That is a simple 50% majority vote.

    We are asking you and your party to acknowledge the voice of over 350,000 people who have signed the petitions and require that the Referendum be held at the most obvious and cost-efficient time of the upcoming election.

    If the Prime Minister goes ahead and forces the Governor-General to declare that it be held by postal voting, then the majority of Parliament can still require the voting period to close on the day of the general election – s22AB(6)(b). This is second best as it is a completely unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.

    If Sir Robert Muldoon could call a 1984 snap election just four weeks before polling day, and the Government in 1999 could take only a week to determine Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day, it proves that the Prime Minister’s claim that there is not enough time is an attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet and undermine democracy.

    The ability to get 390,000 signatures on a petition is a major feat in itself. Please help us uphold democracy in New Zealand.

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • John Armstrong: Election needn’t delay smacking referendum

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10518214

    Wednesday June 25, 2008 By John Armstrong

    Your Views

    Do you support another attempt at a referendum on child discipline laws?

    The Smacking Debate

    Unless the Prime Minister is planning to go to the country much earlier than everyone expects, her assertion that it is not possible to hold the anticipated citizens-initiated referendum on the anti-smacking law on election day simply does not stack up.

    Helen Clark claims there is not enough time for the referendum to run alongside the general election “just in terms of sheer organisation”.

    The real reason, of course, is Labour does not want its election campaign sullied by periodic discussion of the smacking law whose “nanny-state” connotations have proved to be so damaging to her and her party. Better to take some flak now for delaying the referendum than see the debate resurrected over the amended section 59 of the Crimes Act which removes the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children.

    There are good reasons for holding such plebiscites on election day. They are considerably cheaper than stand-alone ones. There is also likely to be a much higher voter turnout.

    Helen Clark might see the latter as a disadvantage, however. Although the Government is not bound by the result, a high turnout could reinforce any majority vote in favour of returning the smacking law to what was previously the case.

    So to hide the realpolitik, the Prime Minister cites practical difficulties in organising a referendum.

    But if that is the case, then it would be impossible to hold a snap election. In case the Prime Minister has forgotten, the 1984 snap election was called by Sir Robert Muldoon just four weeks before polling day. Somehow, electoral officials coped.

    In fact, the law covering citizens-initiated referendums specifically allows Parliament to shift the date of a referendum to the day of a snap election. That suggests there is sufficient time and it is not a problem.

    This year’s general election is still about four months away. The organisers of the petition seeking the smacking referendum have presented some 390,000 signatures in what was their second and final bid to force a ballot on the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    The Office of the Clerk in Parliament now has two months to check whether the petition is signed by the valid signatures of 10 per cent of registered voters.

    That equates to around 290,000 valid signatures. If that threshold is reached, the Government has another month to name the date of the referendum. There is no reason why it should take that long. In 1999, the-then National Government took only a week to determine Norm Withers’ petition for a referendum on violent crime would be held on election day.

    If Labour was as quick, there would still be the best part of two months to organise referendum arrangements. Given ballot papers for the general election cannot be printed until nominations close – around three weeks before election day – it is again hard to see what the problem would be.

    There would be a problem if the election was called before the Office of the Clerk had finished validating the signatures on the petition. That is highly unlikely.

    When asked outside Labour’s caucus meeting yesterday about how the referendum might square with the election date, Helen Clark walked away. The election timetable is not a subject she is ready to traverse.

  • Key calls for smacking referendum

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/10790/key-calls-smacking-referendum?page=0%2C1

    National leader John Key says if campaigners get enough support to force a referendum on so-called smacking laws, the referendum should be held at this year’s election.

    Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday indicated a referendum was unlikely to be held at this year’s election, even if campaigners had enough signatures on their petition, because of the organisation it would take to stage a referendum.

    Campaigners yesterday handed in their second attempt at a petition to force a referendum on the issue.

    Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock handed over more than 390,000 signatures backing the call for a referendum on the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand.” The Office of the Clerk in Parliament has two months to check the petition is signed by 10 percent of registered voters or around 290,000 valid signatures.

    If the threshold is met, the Government would have one month to name a date for a referendum.

    Mr Baldock is hoping it would coincide with this year’s election, but the Government can delay any vote on the issue for up to a year.

    Asked yesterday why it could not be held alongside the election, which must be held by November 15, Miss Clark replied: “Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible.” But Mr Key today told reporters that if the campaigners have the numbers, it should be held at the election this year.

    “Well, the referendum should take place at the general election in 2008 and quite frankly the behaviour of the prime minister smacks of arrogance and wasteful behaviour,” he said.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Green MP Sue Bradford, amended section 59 of the Crimes Act to remove the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children.

    National supported the legislation after an amendment gave police discretion to judge whether a reported offence warranted prosecution.

    Mr Key said his position on the child discipline legislation was clear.

    “But this is about democracy, the right of people to be heard and it’s the absolute height of arrogance that the prime minister is going to use a technicality within the law to circumvent people’s rights to express their views on the issue.” It could take up to two months to check off the signatures on the petition but “ultimately it’s about putting on the ballot paper at election time a pretty straightforward question”.